The Gaming Den

Maybe he likes fictional men, but no real men he has encountered? I mean, Anime dudes are hot.

Orion wrote:Maybe he likes fictional men, but no real men he has encountered? I mean, Anime dudes are hot.

I suppose that's a possibility...I hadn't considered it because I have met men as hot as anime guys, and assumed that other people had as well.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Starmaker wrote: or a tall dark and handsome dickgirl fucking what seems to be a kid (BUT HE'S REALLY 18 HE JUST LOOKS YOUNG YOU PERV!!!1!) are straight female fantasies (note to Lago: yes this shit is marketed at females, do a "what's your biological sex" poll on a thematic forum and everyone comes up "gay male" and also a liar).

o_O

I may be mistaken, but I've never met any straight females that had this fantasy...

At least, they haven't told me (which is perhaps a good thing because that's not really something I want to know from 99% of the population, male or female.)

I have. It might just be my personal experience, but the women who are generally either more sexually experienced and/or aggressive tend to be into that sort of thing. I know one girl who had owed a strap-on for years before she ever had sex with a woman(and she didn't use it on the woman when she did).



PN:

I'm...curious how that works. What, exactly, do you find attractive about homosex if it isn't men? I mean, dick-sucking and anal are both things that can be done without the involvement of real, actual men (as Draco points out). Ain't modern technology grand?
If it's not about men, then you just enjoy the idea of being penetrated...and despite what western culture wants to tell you, there's nothing particularly gay about that, honestly.

Not really sure what to tell you, though the particular nature of this thing is actually bisexual, not homosexual, as my attraction is pretty exclusive to situations involving both men and women simultaneously.

I'm kind of interested in the idea of anal, but it sounds so...messy, in real life. OTOH, sucking cock totally appeals to me (under the right circumstances).

Anal isn't really as messy as you'd think it is. Depending on how much lube you use it can be less messy than either oral or vaginal sex.

Neeeek wrote:I've never known where to put myself on this sort of thing. I find the idea of homosexual sex attractive but I've never found an actual male attractive ever.

I know how you feel somewhat. I actually put myself as transgender, since, well, yeah. But as far as men go, I don't find most men attractive. I'm perfectly interested in cock, I just prefer feminine men aesthetically, and there aren't a lot around here without going into flaming "Uh huh girlfriend!" territory, which I avoid like the damned plague. On the other hand, if the guy isn't a super macho type and a huge nerd, well that makes up for a more masculine physique...

Catharz wrote:If the closest you've gotten is 'I think I would like to have sex with someone of their gender', that's probably just an indication for further research.

I'm totally making that my new pick up line. "Excuse me, a guy on the internet said that if the closest I've gotten is 'I'd like to have sex with someone of your gender' then it's probably an indication that I need further research, so, your lab or mine?"

PoliteNewb wrote:I suppose that's a possibility...I hadn't considered it because I have met men as hot as anime guys, and assumed that other people had as well.

I can't afford to go to anime cons and live in Sacramento, so... yeah, not really.

Neeek wrote:Anal isn't really as messy as you'd think it is. Depending on how much lube you use it can be less messy than either oral or vaginal sex.

Lets be honest here, it depends on a couple more things than just that...

Neeeek wrote: Not really sure what to tell you, though the particular nature of this thing is actually bisexual, not homosexual, as my attraction is pretty exclusive to situations involving both men and women simultaneously.

Fair enough.
And that also plays into my philosophy regarding sexual orientation...quite often, the genders involved are either irrelevant compared to, or highly dependent on, the particular situation, or fetish/kink involved.
So if you (hypothetical, not you specifically) want to do sexy stuff with men, but only in an orgy situation, does that make you bisexual? On the one hand, you want to do stuff with guys...on the other, you wouldn't be doing it if there weren't women involved. You could ask a dozen people and get different answers.

Or my own situation...

I'm interested in sex with a guy, but only if one (or both) of us is crossdressed. I'm into CD, but only sexually (not as a lifestyle or anything). I don't want to have sex with guys as a guy, but it turns me on if I'm dressed as a femme. Similarly, if a guy is in drag and looks pretty good, I could fuck that. The fact that I'm in a monogamous marriage relegates sex with actual men to fantasy material, but there's no point in denying it gets me hard.

Anal isn't really as messy as you'd think it is. Depending on how much lube you use it can be less messy than either oral or vaginal sex.

I hear mixed reports. And just hearing about "santorum" for instance grosses me the fuck out. I'm fine with most bodily fluids, but poo is icky, and I don't want it involved in my sexy times.

That said, I might give it a shot. My wife has expressed a tentative interest in pegging (more in the "what if" sense than anything serious), so you never know. I'd really like her to get a feeldoe so I can try giving her a blowjob...I think she'd enjoy it.

Prak_Anima wrote:

Catharz wrote:If the closest you've gotten is 'I think I would like to have sex with someone of their gender', that's probably just an indication for further research.

I'm totally making that my new pick up line. "Excuse me, a guy on the internet said that if the closest I've gotten is 'I'd like to have sex with someone of your gender' then it's probably an indication that I need further research, so, your lab or mine?"

Let me know if it works.

I'm a straight male and I don't feel neglected by Dragon Age. *Shrug*

Just because I'm a straight male doesn't mean I have to be seeing naked or impractically dressed women in my videogames all the time in order to be happy.

As has been said, Caedrus, myabe not here, I can't remember, but it's been said, the guy is actually complaining about Bioware neglecting homophobes. The guy has a hair up his ass because a male elf hits on his character in the game.

Now, first of all... a male elf isn't only slightly different from a female human... but secondly, it's not like the elf bends you over and reams you for all your worth, or the game comes with a special Elf-do attachment that you must use to advance the plot, he's just bent out of shape because he can't pretend guys who fuck guys don't exist while he plays the game, and the female characters aren't mindless sex slaves.

I seriously am not sure which button to click.

The poll would perhaps be better worded as

"Which gender and orientation do you identify yourself as?"

Anime dudes are hot.

That's the most disturbing line in this entire thread.

If you're seriously into impulsive skinny spiky black haired always late, unlucky, angsty schoolboy ninja cadets with who pilot giant robots then You are doomed to a life of disappointment and frustration.

I hear mixed reports. And just hearing about "Santorum" for instance grosses me the fuck out.

As a former constituent of his, lemme say that everyone should feel that way.

I don't know about anyone else... but the described anime guy is not my kind of anime guy, more, well... this:

Well, ok, and this:

Josh_Kablack wrote: If you're seriously into impulsive skinny spiky black haired always late, unlucky, angsty schoolboy ninja cadets with who pilot giant robots then You are doomed to a life of disappointment and frustration.

Gimme.

Seriously though I my ideal character is
--badass
--feminine

I'm pretty sure Bishounen are the maximizing point on that curve.

Well this thread went into crazy town pretty quickly.

As for the link given by Starmaker, that was filled almost entirely with bullshit. Innocence? That IS attractive to men. The closer a woman is to virginal, the more attractive she is to men. Now because a lot of you are going to say "HURR I FIND VIRGINS UNATTRACTIVE" and miss the point entirely, when I say men I am talking about men in the general sense - saying that men have testicles is exactly the same - some men don't, but this does not invalidate the rule.

Want to guess who the most popular romance in ME2 was for guys?

Let me give you a hint: It was the one who had never done anything with anyone before, was shy and feminine and had a body that rigorously adhered to the "fertile female body" archetype.

EDIT: HAHAHAHHAHAHA

** Some may object that the Rachni Queen is a female "ugly" alien; while this is true, they aren't part of Citadel culture in any way; they aren't meant to be seen as equal to humans or the other intelligent species. Not only that, but, as an insectoid species, the Rachni Queen's only purpose is to breed lots of children—quite patriarchal. Also, one exception does not outweigh the six other species that are "ugly" and all male.

BECAUSE THE PATRIARCHY INVENTED HIVE INSECTS AND ANT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR! CURSE YOU EVIL PATRIARCHS, FOR YOU HAVE GONE BACK IN TIME TO ALTER THE REPRODUCTIVE PRACTICES OF INSECTS THAT EXISTED BEFORE HUMANS DID

Vnonymous wrote:Well this thread went into crazy town pretty quickly.

As for the link given by Starmaker, that was filled almost entirely with bullshit. Innocence? That IS attractive to men. The closer a woman is to virginal, the more attractive she is to men. Now because a lot of you are going to say "HURR I FIND VIRGINS UNATTRACTIVE" and miss the point entirely, when I say men I am talking about men in the general sense - saying that men have testicles is exactly the same - some men don't, but this does not invalidate the rule.

I don't know where the fuck you live, but around here, virgins are most assuredly not considered more attractive. Your statements about 'men in the general sense' would be offensive if they weren't so laughably silly.

Seriously, I've never heard anyone hide behind "most people" more than you Vnonymous.

"Most women prefer when men punch them in the face! You may not, but I said most people! It's true. Just because 100% of the people you've ever met don't want to be punched in the face doesn't mean that I am wrong. I know what most people want because this one guy told me that most people want X, and I believe him."

My heart's not in this because I don't have a problem with the Rachni Queen or anything, but the fact that insects happen to work that way in real life doesn't mean it's not subject to interpretation. The artists choose every element they include or exclude from a game. It's absolutely fair to point out if an artist has chosen to include only or predominately patriarchal societies, no matter what the in-world explanation is. If someone wrote an "insecoid" race that was

--very similar to humans
--a big part of the game
--sympathetic
--fetishized/maternalized the queen using human female tropes

I would indeed accuse them of usinginsectoid biology to smuggle in a patriarchal fairy tale. Actually, this is exactly what some people are saying about Starcraft 2.

Wait, I'm fucking confused. Why are insects where the queen is in charge and rules everything an example of patriarchy again?

Gnosticism Is A Hoot wrote:

Vnonymous wrote:Well this thread went into crazy town pretty quickly.

As for the link given by Starmaker, that was filled almost entirely with bullshit. Innocence? That IS attractive to men. The closer a woman is to virginal, the more attractive she is to men. Now because a lot of you are going to say "HURR I FIND VIRGINS UNATTRACTIVE" and miss the point entirely, when I say men I am talking about men in the general sense - saying that men have testicles is exactly the same - some men don't, but this does not invalidate the rule.

I don't know where the fuck you live, but around here, virgins are most assuredly not considered more attractive. Your statements about 'men in the general sense' would be offensive if they weren't so laughably silly.

The idea of a virgin is attractive; in real life if you're over 16 and haven't had sex yet there's usually a very compelling reason as to why that is so. It's not that being a virgin itself is unattractive, it's that adults tend to be virgins BECAUSE they are unattractive.

Relevant link:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... agon-Age-2

For my own part, I find virginity a turn-off because it's one more hassle to deal with. I don't mind having inexperienced sexual partners per se, but virginity (in both men and women) just makes things that little bit more stressful.

I don't "hide behind" most people. The truth is that a lot of human behaviour is instinctual and defined by the genes - standards of attractiveness are universal(If you don't believe this, you are wrong, with no questions allowed. There are mathematical equations for working out the attractiveness of a female face, and if its' the result of the patriarchy that patriarchy works damn fast, because babies who cannot talk yet actually pick up on these standards of attraction and look at more attractive people more than less attractive ones). While there are obviously some cultural factors(paleness in Asian cultures, for instance), almost all factors are biological. If you seriously believe that men who find infertile and diseased women the best women to have children with have more than a tiny amount of descendants, you are a moron.

Now, let's assume that you guys are correct and men do not value virginity in women. That's why things like hymen restoration surgery and hideous stoning to death of non virginal women doesn't happen. All those women in the middle east who face hideous punishment for being "whores" who lost their hymens before marriage are just whining about nothing, because men don't value virginity at all! Men far prefer women who've had many more sexual partners, which is why former prostitutes are the most desirable women in the world, etc etc.

While I have no doubt that sexual history affects whether or not you would have sex with a given woman, it sure as hell influences whether or not you'd get into a long term relationship with them. All of this stuff is spelled out in the scientific literature, which you attackers of the patriarchy don't like to read because it offends you. The Social Construct theory of gender as espoused by modern gender studies is just as valid as Geocentrism, and that spent a lot more time in vogue, so I'm sure you'll be fine for the rest of your lives at least.

I'm not saying virgins are unattractive because they are virgins, I'm saying they're virgins because they are unattractive. There's a significant difference between the two statements.

Vnonymous wrote:I don't "hide behind" most people. The truth is that a lot of human behaviour is instinctual and defined by the genes - standards of attractiveness are universal(If you don't believe this, you are wrong, with no questions allowed. There are mathematical equations for working out the attractiveness of a female face, and if its' the result of the patriarchy that patriarchy works damn fast, because babies who cannot talk yet actually pick up on these standards of attraction and look at more attractive people more than less attractive ones). While there are obviously some cultural factors(paleness in Asian cultures, for instance), almost all factors are biological.

Nice dodge. Almost every factor is cultural. The acceptable size of the eyes, the acceptable curvature of the forehead, and even the acceptable color of the skin are all cultural. The "mathematical equations" don't tell you shit. The ones that actually work across cultures just predict that substantial deviations from symmetry are hideous and minor deviations from symmetry are not. That's barely even interesting.

Healthy people are hotter than sick people, news at 11. But that doesn't change the fact that Mayans flattened their faces with boards or that Queen Victoria blackened her teeth.

-Username17

Vnonymous wrote:I don't "hide behind" most people. The truth is that a lot of human behaviour is instinctual and defined by the genes - standards of attractiveness are universal(If you don't believe this, you are wrong, with no questions allowed. There are mathematical equations for working out the attractiveness of a female face, and if its' the result of the patriarchy that patriarchy works damn fast, because babies who cannot talk yet actually pick up on these standards of attraction and look at more attractive people more than less attractive ones). While there are obviously some cultural factors(paleness in Asian cultures, for instance), almost all factors are biological. If you seriously believe that men who find infertile and diseased women the best women to have children with have more than a tiny amount of descendants, you are a moron.

Now, let's assume that you guys are correct and men do not value virginity in women. That's why things like hymen restoration surgery and hideous stoning to death of non virginal women doesn't happen. All those women in the middle east who face hideous punishment for being "whores" who lost their hymens before marriage are just whining about nothing, because men don't value virginity at all! Men far prefer women who've had many more sexual partners, which is why former prostitutes are the most desirable women in the world, etc etc.

While I have no doubt that sexual history affects whether or not you would have sex with a given woman, it sure as hell influences whether or not you'd get into a long term relationship with them. All of this stuff is spelled out in the scientific literature, which you attackers of the patriarchy don't like to read because it offends you. The Social Construct theory of gender as espoused by modern gender studies is just as valid as Geocentrism, and that spent a lot more time in vogue, so I'm sure you'll be fine for the rest of your lives at least.

The day I get into a discussion about pop-science biological reductionism on a roleplaying forum is the day I expect to be sectioned. Suffice it to say that the interaction between genetic and environmental factors (both sociological and biological) is a lot more complicated than you seem to think, and that your enthusiastic, crude certainty reminds me of nothing so much as a first-year politics student who's just discovered postmodernism.

200 years ago, the standard of beauty would be called fat and ugly today.
Hell, Marilyn Monroe, would be called Fat in todays' media.

Standards of beauty change.
And idiot, it's not that men find Virgins more attractive (though I'm sure some do) it's that fucktard backward cultures are worried that the son might not be theirs.

It has nothing to do with attractiveness, and everything to do with possession. If you think otherwise, you're an idiot, no questions asked.

Standards of attractiveness are about as universal as nose/penis ratios.

Vnonymous wrote:As for the link given by Starmaker, that was filled almost entirely with bullshit. Innocence? That IS attractive to men. The closer a woman is to virginal, the more attractive she is to men.

Vnonymous wrote:Now, let's assume that you guys are correct and men do not value virginity in women. That's why things like hymen restoration surgery and hideous stoning to death of non virginal women doesn't happen. All those women in the middle east who face hideous punishment for being "whores" who lost their hymens before marriage are just whining about nothing, because men don't value virginity at all! Men far prefer women who've had many more sexual partners, which is why former prostitutes are the most desirable women in the world, etc etc.

What are you actually saying? Your first post was about attractiveness, and you suddenly changed it to "value" in the second post. There's a pretty big difference between the two. A lot of that middle east culture you brought up there has more to do with misogyny and control than beauty and value.